Stephen Best

I'm anticipating that Prime Minister @MarkJCarney's response will be to do nothing and explain 'do nothing' as being pragmatic and realistic in this hinge moment in history as Canada navigates with its global partners through this rift in the Canada/United States relationship that has been beneficial to both our countries. cbc.ca/news/world/tru…

7/7 — OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND METHOD Mark Carney and the Liberals possess the strongest present position. Carney’s reputation for competence and international management remains a substantial asset, but the government is increasingly exposed to the ordinary burdens of power: affordability, implementation and accountability. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives possess the clearest issue opening. Economic insecurity could narrow the Liberal advantage further, but Poilievre’s polarizing personal image remains an obstacle to converting dissatisfaction into majority support. Avi Lewis gives the NDP a more distinct ideological identity. His task is to transform recognition and progressive enthusiasm into organizational strength, parliamentary relevance and support beyond the party’s existing constituencies. Yves-François Blanchet remains a capable advocate for Quebec nationalism, but the current political climate rewards Canadian unity and Liberal federal leadership. The Bloc remains competitive where its support is concentrated, yet lacks a dominant issue capable of reorganizing Quebec politics around it. Method: AI was used to organize and analyze publicly available polling, news reporting, political statements and accessible online discussion. Polls were not averaged mechanically, and online comments were not counted as votes. The final assessments are interpretive, provisional and open to correction. Overall conclusion: Canada’s political mood is stable but conditional. Carney leads; Poilievre has an opening; Lewis has space; Blanchet has a base. For every party, the risks and rewards are accumulating.

6/7 — YVES-FRANÇOIS BLANCHET AND THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS Current perception: Blanchet is perceived as experienced, disciplined and effective at presenting himself as a defender of Quebec’s language, culture, jurisdiction and political autonomy. He remains a familiar and credible figure within Quebec politics. The difficulty confronting the Bloc is not primarily Blanchet’s competence. It is the present political environment. Concern about American pressure has encouraged many Quebec voters to favour a strong federal government, while Carney’s Liberals currently lead the Bloc substantially in Quebec. Negative perception: The Bloc’s usefulness can appear diminished when the defining political concern is protecting Canada as a whole from an external threat. Renewed emphasis on sovereignty may mobilize committed sovereigntists while narrowing the party’s appeal among voters who are nationalist but not separatist. Direction: Resilient but squeezed. Abacus places the Liberals at 43% in Quebec, the Bloc at 30% and the Conservatives at 21%. Nevertheless, the Bloc received 46.9% in the April Terrebonne by-election, losing narrowly to the Liberals. Its constituency has weakened but plainly has not disappeared. Rewards: A serious conflict involving Quebec jurisdiction, French-language protection, immigration authority, culture or federal spending could rapidly restore the Bloc’s political relevance. The party does not need to persuade all Quebecers; it needs to become the clearest vehicle for voters who believe Quebec’s interests are being disregarded. Risks: Continued Liberal strength and concern about Trump favour federal unity over Quebec sovereignty. If the Parti Québécois dominates the approaching provincial conversation about independence, the Bloc may also struggle to establish a distinct federal purpose. Assessment: Blanchet retains a durable base and considerable political skill. What the Bloc presently lacks is a grievance powerful enough to displace Carney’s appeal as a defender of Quebec within Canada.

1/7 — CANADIAN POLITICAL PERCEPTION MONITOR July 20, 2026 — Experimental First Edition This Monitor, an AI experiment, is a snapshot of how Canada’s principal federal leaders and political parties are currently perceived. It is not an election prediction and does not claim to measure every Canadian’s opinion. The analysis considers recent public-opinion polling, national and regional news coverage, political statements, public commentary and accessible online discussion. Polling is treated as the strongest quantitative evidence. News and online discussion are used more cautiously to identify political narratives, areas of enthusiasm or hostility, and factors that may alter perceptions. Each assessment includes: • Current perception • Negative perception • Direction • Rewards: developments that could improve the party’s position • Risks: developments that could damage it AI was used to synthesize publicly available information. Online activity is treated as a narrative signal, not as a representative poll. Editorial judgment and responsibility for publication remain human.

@CanadianGreens .@MarkJCarney has an infinite capacity to invent excuses explaining why he can't or won't get things done.

Home insurance premiums rose 45% between December 2019 and December 2025 as the climate crisis fuelled more destructive floods, fires and storms. Canadians are footing the bill for Big Oil’s endless emissions, and that bill keeps climbing.

@CdnInst4HistEd Hard pressed to think of a more specious, vacuous, and empty trope than @MarkJCarney's "Canadian leadership..." It's political flim-flam and nothing more. All to keep the rubes on side.

“Canadian leadership is no longer defined by just the strength of our values, but also by the value of our strength.” That is how Prime Minister Mark Carney has come to frames Canada’s role in the world now that Canada has reached NATO’s longstanding target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Carney has described the 2 per cent target as “not a ceiling for Canada’s defence investment, but rather the foundation.” The government has also committed Canada to NATO’s new defence investment target of 5 per cent of GDP by 2035. For much of its history, Canada has struggled to decide how much military power it needed, how closely it should work with its allies and how much sacrifice Canadians should be asked to make. Before the Second World War, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King believed Canada faced less immediate danger than the European powers. “Relatively our danger is small,” he told Parliament while discussing defence policy before the war. Within a few years, that calculation had changed completely. Canada placed its economy on a war footing, built ships, aircraft and military bases, trained aircrew from across the Commonwealth and sent more than one million Canadians and Newfoundlanders into military service. The country emerged from the war with one of the world’s largest armed forces. Peace did not last long. Canada became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The Korean War began the following year, while the Soviet Union and the Western allies confronted one another across Europe. At first, Prime Minister Louis St-Laurent remained cautious. In September 1950, he said, "the government was not considering the raising of Canadian forces to dispatch to Europe.” Within months, however, Canada had committed forces to both Korea and Europe. Canadian troops remained stationed in Europe for decades. Canada helped build continental air defences, joined NORAD, patrolled the North Atlantic and became an important contributor to the Western alliance. This was the Canada of the early Cold War. It was a country that saw military preparedness as a permanent responsibility, not simply an emergency response. Then the Cold War ended. Canadian governments reduced military spending, closed bases and withdrew the country’s permanently stationed forces from Europe. In 2014-15, Canadian defence spending had fallen to roughly 1 per cent of GDP. Canada had come to rely increasingly on geography, American military power and the belief that major war between powerful states had become unlikely. That belief is now being reconsidered. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, growing competition in the Arctic, cyberattacks and uncertainty about the future of the international order have returned defence spending to the centre of Canadian politics. Those words mark a significant change in how Canadian governments have spoken about the country’s role in the world. But the underlying question is an old one. When Mackenzie King believed Canada’s danger was small, the government spent accordingly. When St-Laurent concluded that Canada’s security depended on collective defence, Canada built a permanent military presence overseas. When the Cold War ended, Canadians collected a peace dividend. Today, Canada is being asked to decide whether that era is over. How much should Canada invest in defending itself, and what role should it be prepared to play in the world? Every generation has been asked to ponder these questions. Now it is our turn. #Canada #History #ContextMatters

@mrmikeMTL The acquisition and application of power.

A reputable university asks you to teach a class tomorrow for $1M/year... what subject?

@GerryMRW @MarkJCarney One would hope.

@BestStephenD @MarkJCarney Uh, the military does that stuff all on its own.

I'm curious if the @MarkJCarney government has given the Canadian Armed Forces the order to 'war game' the United States military attacking Canada.

@FP_Champagne @deb2_debra Taking credit, I see, for something you’re not part of except to make it worse.

Face à des feux de forêt dévastateurs, le Canada mobilise toutes ses ressources. Prenez un moment pour lire un compte rendu de la part du Premier Ministre. 🔽

@RiseFromTheAshZ No ads, too, I hope?

@BestStephenD There are no previews. Only a 4 minute Dune 3 promo.

Alas, Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey runs 2 hours and 52 minutes—172 minutes with no intermission. Add 20 minutes of advertisements and 'coming soon' trailers, and I genuinely doubt I have the physical capacity to sit that long without needing a break. Too bad, but I likely will not be going to a theatre to see what by all accounts sounds like a wonderful film.

@GumptionAndCo @MarkJCarney Oh, look, everybody! There's Prime Minister @MarkJCarney showing up, once again, to take some credit for something that he not only had nothing to do with but also is trying to make worse.

How many days did it take you to write this? Too busy/distracted by destroying our lives and futures, and violating our Charter rights. Worst Prime Minister we have ever had. Canadians need to use their brains and stop electing Zionist capitalist sociopaths. @MarkJCarney

@FP_Champagne "All-hands-on-deck approach"? Curious, is there anyone in the @MarkJCarney government who is able to say anything that is not just a bunch of clichés mashed together?

In response to the devastating fires, Canada is taking an all-hands-on-deck approach. Take a moment to read all that is being done. 🔽

@brent_raycroft We're seeing three of the world's most morally reprehensible nations--United States, Israel, and Iran--wage war between themselves. I don't 'support' any of them. A plague on all three.

@BestStephenD We should support Iran, but we cant even do that openly. We're more like Austria circa 1939.

For Canadians who believe that the US military cannot be resisted, I give you Iran.

@mikebaird17 Keeping with your very apt road reference, taking in the The Odyssey is the equivalent of about 320 kilometres without a stop, like driving from Toronto City Hall to about Brockville.

@BestStephenD Same here. For me 'one for the road' means emptying my very sketchy bladder.

No, I think I've told you what I'd do, perhaps, three times. I would have the Federal government pay 100% of the health care costs. The provincial government would regulate the operations. The money would be paid, in my scheme, directly to the health care providers and not the provincial government. You've said repeatedly that my approach was wrong. Indeed, you said you proved I was wrong. Apart from asserting I'm wrong, do you have notions about how Canadians can be assured of high quality, timely, universal, publicly funded health care? I'm curious why you think the provinces would regulate health care badly, when there would be no financial incentive for them to do so.

@BestStephenD @MarkJCarney So, keep everything the way it is.

Prime Minister @MarkJCarney, in particular, and most of Canada's premiers are sorely failing Canadians on one of their most basic obligations: health care Carney deserves special condemnation as he intends to spend lavishly and recklessly and stupidly on things that will do nothing to protect and enhance Canadians well-being: ridiculous pipelines to keep dying industries functioning, military equipment better suited to past wars, and the pay offs to a President shaking him down in a protection racket. Sad state of affairs when the greatest threats to Canadians are the very elected officials charged with keeping them safe. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-…